This week’s story begins with the Three Stooges, and ends with zombies.

The story starts in 1957, when Columbia Pictures shut down the Three Stooges’ production unit and released the aging comedy stars. The Stooges had been poking each other in the eye for 22 years—and that’s just for Columbia Pictures’ theatrical shorts division—they’d been a comedy team for over three decades by that point.

In one of the crazy ironies that make life so baffling and interesting, being fired by Columbia more or less coincided with the pinnacle of their popularity. The studio’s licensing arm Screen Gems sold a package of Stooges comedies to TV, where they ended up on after-school broadcasts to a whole generation of viewers.

The ratings went through the roof, and Columbia could barely keep up, selling old Stooges comedies to meet the demand.

But here’s the thing: the actual comedians responsible for those insanely successful films weren’t getting a dime from any of this resurgent interest. They were unemployed, with no direct way to profit in their own popularity.

Moe Howard’s son-in-law formed a production company, and started making new Stooges comedies to leverage this popularity into actual revenue to the comedians. Curly and Shemp had both passed away, and Joe Besser had withdrawn from the team for personal reasons, so in order to make these new Three Stooges films they had to hire a new third Stooge—Joe DeRita. He shaved his head and consciously conformed his performance to slot comfortably into memories of the late Curly—and the films were little more than remakes of past glories.

You’d have to be a cold-hearted Grinch of a Stooges fan not to find these 1960s era films passably entertaining; at the same time you’d have to be very easily pleased to find them anything more than passably entertaining. They exist for purely crass commercial reasons—they are there to cash in. But because the Stooges were denied any profit participation in their original work, they had no other way to benefit from being some of the most popular comedians of the late 50s and early 1960s.

A few weeks ago, I very inelegantly stated that the only reason movies get made is to make money. A fair number of commenters weighed in with their objections, pointing out all the creative individuals who went into filmmaking for reasons other than just money. And of course they exist—movies would be a pretty dreary experience without them. But that wasn’t what I meant—so let me try to clarify my original point.

There are an enormous number of aspiring artists—screenwriters, directors, actors, etc—with visions they wish to share with the world. Theonly thing that separates the dreamers from those lucky few who actually do get to make movies is that a small percentage of them have managed to find someone to bankroll their visions. When I said the only reason movies get made is to make money, what I mean is that without the financial backing of investors or corporate entities that pay for the production, the movie isn’t going to get made. And those investors or corporate entities may be willing to endure a loss or two in the pursuit of a bigger hit, but if they don’t consistently make money on the deal they won’t keep financing your films.

There’s nothing evil about this. It’s just a fact of life. Movies are expensive. Even the independent filmmakers who finance their low-budget productions on credit cards and deferred payments eventually have to pay their bills or they don’t get to make a second film. A studio that consistently loses money on its films will go bankrupt and stop making movies. If you want to enjoy movies, someone has to pay for them—and they’ll only do that if it makes financial sense for them to do so.

Too often the money men are portrayed as the villains in the story of film, and as movie buffs we fall into reflexive habits of thoughtlessly accepting this bias without thinking about it. I won’t pretend there aren’t some villainous bean counters, and this week’s post tells some of their stories, but I want to exorcise the cliché that the commercial imperative behind filmmaking is inherently something tawdry and undesirable.

And to that end, as one small step in a larger theme I expect to return to over time in this blog, I want to highlight some movies that are unambiguously made for the crassest of reasons, in order to celebrate them.

Consider Monty Python, for example. Like the Three Stooges, they did not originally have an ownership stake in their groundbreaking TV comedy Monty Python’s Flying Circus. It had been made by the BBC, which controlled the circumstances under which episodes would be licensed to other broadcasters or distributors. Eventually, the Pythons bought back ownership of their show (and saved the master tapes from being destroyed), but that didn’t happen until they had the money to do so—and that in turn couldn’t happen until they started to make real money off their comedy, and that in turn depended on making feature films, and that in turn meant breaking into the world of feature filmmaking, and that in turn depended on having a viable American fanbase because all the money in filmmaking is in the American market…

The first Monty Python feature film was just a sampler platter of some of their TV sketches, remade on 35mm film instead of the videotape and 16mm of their TV show. And Now For Something Completely Different is a fairly disappointing thing to actually watch. It has higher production values than the TV version, but it lacks some of the same sense of rule-breaking and risk-taking that gave the TV show such an enduring energy.

Like the Stooges’ 1960s films, it’s mostly for completists, and pales in comparison to the original material—and like the Stooges’ 60s films, it exists for legal reasons, not creative ones. They needed a low-cost way to start establishing an American fanbase, and the American distribution of the TV show wasn’t going very well. Remaking the show was an inexpensive, low-risk way of asserting some ownership control over their intellectual property and better manage the cash-flow from its exploitation. Without And Now For Something Completely Different there would never have been a Monty Python and the Holy Grail, The Life of Brian, or The Meaning of Life.

Which brings us to zombies. I promised you zombies.

George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead was one of the best horror films of the 1960s, and a profoundly influential work of pop culture. The lasting effects of Romero’s vision can be felt anytime you tune in to The Walking Dead today, to name just the most obvious, low-hanging fruit of an example.

The problem was that Romero’s production team placed the copyright notice on the opening title card, but not anywhere else (like the closing titles), and when distributor Walter Reade changed the title from Night of the Flesh Eaters to Night of the Living Dead, the replaced title card omitted the copyright notice. Without an onscreen statement of copyright ownership, Night of the Living Dead was technically in the public domain.

Like the Three Stooges, Romero found himself in the unenviable position of watching as the culture at large around him went gaga for his hard work and creativity, his passion and vision, while he was denied the chance to profit from that success directly.

There have been several attempts to reestablish ownership over Night of the Living Dead. In 1990, Tom Savini directed a remake, under the aegis of the original film’s creative team. The remake directly benefitted that production team, in a way that the original no longer could. As with the examples cited above, however, there remained a cachet to the original that the remake couldn’t surpass. For fans, the original remained superior.

Night of the Living Dead’s screenwriter John Russo later produced Night of the Living Dead-The 30th Anniversary Edition which re-edited the original film and included newly shot material. It was widely rejected by fans as a bastardization of Romero’s original film.

And that’s the final irony of these examples. When movies are remade, an oft-heard concern voiced by fans of the originals is that the remakes will supplant the originals. But here we have examples of remakes that failed to replace the originals, even though they were made by the original creators specifically for that purpose. In each of these cases, the creative team was undone by their own fans, who never stopped preferring the originals. Even if the creators’ bank accounts would very much have preferred otherwise.

I think that ‘money men’ have been maligned as heartless cold brutes because actors/artists/dreamers who live and die by their emotions don’t like to be told “NO!”
Example: Some artiste with a passion for 18th Century Bank accounting practices in Alberta Canada wants to do a story on Harrison Edgert Ficuas who came up with a rule for reabsorbing lost maintenance fees.
The money men say “NO!”
But the artiste is a CELEBRITY with microphones in his face every time he steps out of his car or residence. He has the power of popular opinion on his side because He IS An ARTISTE.
“Yeah, those heartless blankety blank money men are ruining Hollywood with their penny pinching cutthroat blank. I’ve been trying to get my Ficuas movie g-lit for years, and all they know how to say is “NO!” and “Blankety blankety blank NO!”
Anytime you hear someone defined by his opposition, you are not going to get an objective definition.
It’s a simple formula for success, paraphrasing what David wrote: bring value to the table, and the money will be there. Prove that you are worth investing in, and you will never go hungry.
I don’t expect anyone else to finance my dreams; I’m happy that they remain dreams.

Posted By tdraicer : May 3, 2014 5:35 pm

There remains a fundamental difference in my view between those who want to make money by producing art, and those who see art as just another way to make money. I recognize in the world we live in we need police, soldiers, and money men, but recognizing that we need them will never make them my heroes.

>It’s a simple formula for success, paraphrasing what David wrote: bring value to the table, and the money will be there

The number of great talents in history who died in poverty suggests otherwise.

Posted By Susan Doll : May 3, 2014 7:28 pm

I heard that Ronald Reagan when he was president of the Screen Actors Guild negotiated the issue of residuals for sales of serials and series to television. The cut off date for actors receiving residuals was 1960, so those who made movie serials and series before then (the Stooges; Roy Rogers and Dale Evans; etc.) were not compensated. Several who were aware of the Stooges’ plight with Columbia tried to intercede and get Reagan to negotiate a better deal for actors, but he opted to side with the networks, tv production companies, and sponsors. Is that just a rumor, or is there anything to it.

Posted By Doug : May 3, 2014 10:14 pm

tdraicer-I appreciate your point, but:”The number of great talents in history who died in poverty suggests otherwise.”
Dying in poverty is no measure of the quality of a person or his or her talents; as there have always been more poor people than rich, numbers would suggest that more great talents die poor, and there is no shame in that.
Conversely, there are many ‘rich’ people who are absolute failures as human beings.
My point was that someone who has great talents, who brings value to the bargaining table will succeed in Hollywood just as in every other commercial enterprise.
One of my favorites, Ginger Rogers had an exceptional career because she was talented AND because those talents added value-she made millions for the studios, and did more than all right for herself. She was a dependable talent who succeeded in a very tough field for decades.
Without naming names, we all know of great talents who squandered their careers and lives because of personal problems which made them “uninsurable”. They got to the point where they added red ink to the ledgers rather than black. We are saddened by unrealized potential, but life is what it is.

Posted By george : May 3, 2014 10:29 pm

“But here’s the thing: the actual comedians responsible for those insanely successful films weren’t getting a dime from any of this resurgent interest. They were unemployed, with no direct way to profit in their own popularity.”

Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy went through the same thing when their films became popular on TV in the ’50s. At least the Stooges were a bit younger and still able to perform (except for Curly and Shemp, who were dead). So they WERE able to “profit in their own popularity,” even if the money wasn’t coming from the TV showings.

Posted By george : May 3, 2014 11:06 pm

Joseph McBride’s book on Frank Capra states that Capra shared in the profits from his Columbia films, and received royalties from their TV showings, theatrical revivals, and home video sales. He didn’t own the films, but he did profit from them in his retirement years.

Anyone know of another studio director of the 1930s who had this sort of deal?

Posted By tdraicer : May 4, 2014 6:02 am

>My point was that someone who has great talents, who brings value to the bargaining table will succeed in Hollywood just as in every other commercial enterprise.

And my point is that there is a difference between value (money) and great talent. A lot of hacks have become very rich, and a lot of great talents have not, and that is because the values of commerce and the values of art are not the same. I would argue that it is far better (in terms of “value”) to have a minor talent and be great at selling yourself than to be a major talent and poor at selling yourself. To believe otherwise is to accept that The Transformer movies (which made huge amounts of money) are works of cinema art.

Posted By Doug : May 4, 2014 6:05 pm

tdraicer, though it might seem unclear, I think that we are actually agreeing on the subject.

Posted By DBenson : May 5, 2014 5:58 am

The tricky thing about filmed entertainment (and other forms of intellectual property) is that you have an asset that can be made to pay forever. Do creators deserve a piece of that, even if they were well-paid for their initial work?

It’s easy to mock the idea of an actor or other artist getting eternal residuals for work in the distant past. But if the property is making money forever, it’s hard to defend the idea that the current rights holder is entitled to all of it (especially when that person or entity didn’t invest in the original project or otherwise risk a cent).

Laurel and Hardy did manage to profit from some live tours of Europe, as physically taxing as those were. And if not rich, they were at least comfortable in retirement (Laurel was deeply upset by rumors otherwise). But it must have been galling to see Roach — who Laurel frequently clashed with — not only marketing the films to television but allowing painful re-editing (hacking features into faux shorts, etc).

Footnote on the Stooge feature films: Unlike their earlier work — even the last-gasp shorts — the movies were made to appeal to their NEW audience: Kids. The last, “The Outlaws is Coming,” underlined this by shipping in local kid show hosts to play the outlaws. So it wasn’t just a matter of age slowing them down. They had to play more gently than they ever played before.

Posted By DBenson : May 5, 2014 6:17 am

One small benefit of remakes or reboots for amateur film buffs. Studios would sometimes release a forgotten relic from the vaults hoping to ride the remake’s coattails.

We got the Bonita Granville “Nancy Drew” series that way, not to mention the Columbia “Batman” serials and, back in the VHS era, the “Shadow” serial and the RKO “Saint” features.

Now it’s hard to think of any locked-up treasures that remain to be liberated by such an event. Nearly all the old franchise characters are already available, and Time Warner seems to have scraped up and packaged every foot of Superman material (even acquiring the Columbia serials and releasing them).

Posted By george : May 5, 2014 5:00 pm

“Now it’s hard to think of any locked-up treasures that remain to be liberated by such an event.”

Last one I recall: Tim Burton’s unfortunate DARK SHADOWS movie prompted Warner to finally put out DVDs of HOUSE and NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS.

Posted By swac44 : May 6, 2014 12:39 pm

Fingers crossed for a Bulldog Drummond revival…

Posted By swac44 : May 6, 2014 12:41 pm

As for those later Stooges features,those played kiddie matinee shows well into the ’70s (I have dim memories of catching one in my single-digit years), and possibly even the ’80s in some markets. Like that Mexican Santa Claus feature which kept coming back year after year, I wonder if local film exchanges simply kept a print and kept renting it out to theatres that wanted to boost their weekend take at the box office (from parents who’d drop their kids off at the movies so they could get their shopping done).

Posted By frankebe : May 7, 2014 11:52 pm

“Outlaws is Coming” is hilarious!

Posted By robbushblog : May 12, 2014 7:28 pm

Did this idea of rights issues cause Hitchcock, Capra, DeMille, and Howard Hawks (possibly among others) to remake some of their earlier films?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Current ye@r*

Leave this field empty

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Streamline is the official blog of FilmStruck, a new subscription service that offers film aficionados a comprehensive library of films including an eclectic mix of contemporary and classic art house, indie, foreign and cult films.